Whether, under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), a district court must first determine whether 'extraordinary-and-compelling-reasons' warrant such a reduction as a threshold eligibility inquiry, or whether a district court can deny a motion for a reduced sentence without resolving this issue at all, but instead by finding that the applicable-sentencing-factors in 18-U.S.C.-§-3553(a) do not warrant a reduced sentence

QUESTION PRESENTED Under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)G@), a district court may reduce a term of imprisonment “after considering the factors set forth in [18 U.S.C. §] 3553(a) to the extent that they are applicable,” but only “if it finds that .. . extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant such a reduction.” As initially codified, only the Bureau of Prisons could move to modify a federal prisoner’s sentence, but it rarely did so. In response, in December 2018, Congress amended the statute to permit federal prisoners to file their own motions. This amendment has resulted in significant litigation, but the lower courts have split multiple ways over the statute’s meaning. At present, this Court has yet to interpret the statute. The question presented is: Whether, under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)Q), a district court must first determine whether “extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant such a reduction” as a threshold eligibility inquiry, as multiple Circuits have held, or whether a district court can deny a motion for a reduced sentence without resolving this issue at all, but instead by finding that the applicable sentencing factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) do not warrant a reduced sentence, as the Tenth Circuit held below. i